Perhaps these squash enchiladas at the East Side Café, Austin, will soften the blow
In defense of the tawdry and divisive BDSM threads
Please, no more BSDM conversations on this site! It just leads to a lot of us who are natural patriarchy-blaming allies getting upset with each other, and that helps no-one except the patriarchy. [*]
I’m probably gonna regret this, but I have to take one last stab at—I know! I’m sorry!—BDSM before imposing a necessary moratorium. Because, like everything else that aims to reduce women to fuckbot status, such as the previously-discussed plural marriage dealio, or South Dakota’s recent hostile takeover of its population’s uteruses, BDSM is a feminist issue, and the fact that some feminists are also pro-BDSM is a dumb reason not to blame the patriarchy for it. Actually, that BDSM has emerged as divisive among “patriarchy-blaming allies” interests me strangely.
I mean, am I a spinster aunt or aren’t I? The code demands that I not shirk my duty. It has not escaped my notice that it upsets some women when I say their beloved stiletto heels are tools of the patriarchy, or when I say the nuclear family is a tool of the patriarchy, or when I say that pole-dancing is a tool of the patriarchy, so I don’t expect they’ll like it when I out their spanky-spanky sex life as a tool of the patriarchy, either.
As repulsed as I am by the fetishization of patriarchy, and despite the sad fact that I am up for a Koufax Award for “Best New Inadvertent BDSM Blog By A Texan Spinster Aunt,” and as often as I have to cover my ears and go “muamauamuamaua” when people start describing their dorky sex lives, I’m convinced that these discussions actually serve the interests of patriarchy-blaming. True, we don’t need to have them every week, if only because of the alternating spasms of boredom and disgust that afflict me personally whenever the subject comes up. Which is why I was this close to not posting that Taken In Hand thing (whether it’s BDSM or something even more fucked up, I leave to those with stronger stomachs to decide): on accounta the boredom and disgust alone.
But, like it or lump it, BDSM is patriarchy, the whole patriarchy, and nothin’ but the patriarchy, in a black latex nutshell. It is, I unwaveringly assert according to the Honor Code of the Blaming Spinsters, the eroticization of a vastly horrific social order that has, over the millennia, generated the suffering of untold millions, and against which I am sworn to vituperate. BDSM’s got it all: sex, power, rape, pain, dominance, submission, the false pretext of freedom, delusions of superiority, sublimation of the orgasm at all costs, women who think it liberates them, a conservative orthodoxy, compulsory conformity, absurd, exaggerated gender roles, and a silly dress code. It is profoundly anti-feminist, anti-intellectual, anti-individual, and unattractive.
Do it, do it, do it till you’re satisfied, whatever it is. Just don’t kid yourself. You’re gettin’ off on patriarchy. Which is not to say that patriarchy-blamers can’t be all “yay, BDSM!” Because if pain and humiliation get you off, what better way to achieve it than by hanging a sign on your ass reading “I blamed the patriarchy but all I got was his stupid orgasm.”
And now, I’m satisfied; you may all strew rose petals in my path and get over the dry heaves, for the subject is closed until further notice.
“Do it, do it, do it till you’re satisfied, whatever it is. Just don’t kid yourself. You’re gettin’ off on patriarchy. Which is not to say that patriarchy-blamers can’t be all “yay, BDSM!†Because if pain and humiliation get you off, what better way to achieve it than by hanging a sign on your ass reading “I blamed the patriarchy but all I got was his stupid orgasm.â€
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!! You just made my day!
Not “this” stupid orgasm, but HIS stupid orgasm. If that was a typo, all I can say is that it was glorious!
No typo. I’m against typos, too.
Wow. Excellent post.
I will confess to expecting that the post was going to end with Twisty saying “I do like to administer a good spanking every now and again.”
But, you hit it dead on. BDSM is all about power.
Damn, Twisty. Just……damn….
Damn, that’s a fine-looking enchilada.
But, like it or lump it, BDSM is patriarchy, the whole patriarchy, and nothin’ but the patriarchy, in a black latex nutshell.
I initially read nutshell as nutsack.
That was a true confession, by the way.
“the subject is closed until further notice.”
Seriously? You promise, Twisty? So, it’s ok to delurk again?
Um, yeah, Twisty. No women ever have orgasms when BDSM is involved.
the soft sound of fresh and fragrant rose petals being dropped on your path … like the endless music of pure white snow falling through an empty sky onto a silent meadow under a full poignant moon …
/ehj2
Damn Twisty, you are so good I can have orgasm just by reading your posts.
And now, I’m satisfied; you may all strew rose petals in my path and get over the dry heaves, for the subject is closed until further notice.
Hoo bloody ray.
And pancakes for Mardi Gras is bloody good too.
At least that’s what the snap looks like to me.
That does it. I am going to have to find a way to Austin. Those squash enchiladas are calling my name.
Oh, and I blame the patriarchy because I can’t get squash enchiladas here.
What about men who like being dominated, spanked, tied up or whatever by women? Are these men also tools of the patriarchy?
Twisty, thank you for a fantastic summary — so hilarious too. I’ve enjoyed this post immensely. BDSM sounds totally bizarre to me because it’s nowhere near what I look for in bed, so I’ve learnt a bit from this exchange. Ah, so fun and informative, the Twisty way of blaming! (By the way, not that I feel snug at all right now — for instance, I wear high heels and suspect that the spinster aunt’s axe will probably fall again near shoes quite soon.)
I’m going to comment on Loiuse’s comment and say that men who like being beat upon are sort of like the CEO-white-guy in the phone commercial. “But Sir, you *are* The Man.”
Go Twisty!
louise - what part of “the subject is closed” did you fail to understand?
even I know when to say when.
I agree with all of this, Twisty, including the part about BDSM being dorky. At the same time I have a hard time getting worked up about it; I’d just be happy if more people were less forthcoming about their private perversions.
That was great.
BDSM: You get all the sexual freedom patriarchy will allow you. The question is, is that equality? And who is satisified with sex instead of freedom? As Ti-Grace Atkinson might require us to ask.
“But I do not know any feminist worthy of that name who, if forced to choose between freedom and sex, would choose sex. She’d choose freedom every time.”
Ok, so even my slow-to-grasp-things brain managed to understand how BDSM is a fetishization of Patriarchy.
But, what I’ve been grappling with lately, and maybe you can address it if you feel like a brain teaser, is this:
Given the seeming biological inherancy of heterosexual sex among humans, and…
Given the invasive nature of that act…
Is Patriarchy inherant in the species?
Gimme that enchilada!
Finn: Patriarchy is “inherent” the way other social and individual kinds of neurosis are inherent. In other words, however universal it may seem (and however much despair that causes us), its a way of functioning that’s transcended in healthier human beings.
I’m going to miss your terrific blaming in regards to BDSM.
I’ll guess I’ll just have to save this for reference.
It annoys me that the BDSMers are so great at intimidating people from challenging them.
Meanwhile - I have found all sorts of great radical feminist sites that are taking such things on like:
http://bitingbeaver.blogspot.com/2006/02/rape-as-control.html
http://www.hustlingtheleft.com/
If you know of other radical feminist sites taking on BDSM esp. please post. Thanks.
And… consensual sex isn’t any more “invasive” than a guest you entertain in your living room.
Cass:
But, just like grandma, make sure you wrap up that couch in plastic before anyone sits on it!
I’m almost toying with writing a story about a successful executive who shows up at a woman’s house expecting to be “dominated” by a corset-wearing, whip-wielding sexpot “mistress”–and then finds that the domina (”You do NOT call me Mistress”) has different methods.
Thanks Twisty! You rock!
Damnit, I can’t quit you, Twisty!
Thanks for the BDSM kibosh, sister spinster!
I just don’t want to know about the kinky personal sexual details of total strangers, because, ick.
Onward: I look forward to more conversation about tater tots and squash enchiladas. How I love the East Side Cafe. Don’t they have those gingerbread pancakes? (”prozac on a plate”? I know I’ve had ‘em at the Omelettry) How come no one outside of Austin has developed the gingerbread pancake recipe? And does anyone have that recipe? Because I’d love to make some my own self.
I said it in another thread and I’ll say it here: It doesn’t matter who is tied up, or who is the “master†or the “mistress.†Whatever role a man might like to play in this drama, he is still worshipping at the alter of his own dick. And any woman who plays this game (in whatever role, in whatever outfit or with whatever props),if she is doing it in service to a man’s sexual satisfaction (or playing a “power” position in a lesbian encounter) she NOT “liberated;†rather, she is also worshipping at the Altar of the Dick, just in a more stylized fashion than the vanillas, while wearing a sillier costume.
This doesn’t mean BDSM practitioners (gay, straight, whatever) can’t still call themselves feminists. It’s as simple as Twisty stated: Just don’t kid yourselves!
I’m convinced that Priapism is the true World Religion.
I think that the only reason we see heterosexual sex as invasive, and male=active, female=passive is because of the patriarchy. There are many perspectives to see it from. The female could be enveloping, devouring, or surrounding the male–any number of active verbs. In fact, I think I’ve heard that the idea of the devouring vagina is a scary thing in many cultures, probably because it upsets the patriarchy’s paradigm. I also think the rather silly euphemisms “joining together” or “becoming one” are more equal ways of referring to the sex act. Maybe we should brainstorm some better ones.
Pardon my ignorance here. But why is a nuclear family a tool of the patriarchy?
I agree that any attempt to hold it up as the Golden Standard, and that the resulting condemnation of other family structures is abhorrent. Evidence today’s anti-
gay-marriage-campaign.
But I don’t see why the nuclear family in and of itself must be a patriarchal tool.
I am married and am also a feminist. My husband is also a feminist. We are raising children.
So how is it that we are “tools of the patriarchy”? :-\
Not that I’m easily distracted, but those enchiladas are gorgeous. If you are ever in San Antonio, we have what I believe must be a similar veggie enchilada at Mario’s. In the meantime, I’m going to have to head up to Austin to investigate the East Side Café. That’s a cream sauce on top, right? Yummy.
Great post, too, by the way. ;)
ps - I guess I haven’t commented in a while, or else was just espcially oblivious the last time I posted, but the “blame” button feature is a nice touch.
Jezebella: Kerbey Lane has the gingerbread pancakes. They’re a bit heavy for my taste, but you can order the mix here: www.kerbeylanecafe.com/store.htm
ok , since nobody else is shutting up I may as well take my at-bat now.
hedonistic - I respectfully disagree. IF female submission is at the root of all patriarchy, then saying “I am a BDSM feminist” is like saying “I am a communist stockbroker.” sure, we all try our best to get through each day under the Big Thumb and make our deals and do what we gotta do. but how many get-out-of-ideology-free cards does one get before s/he loses feminist cred?
it’s not like forgetting to recycle once in a while or buying non-organic vegetables or wearing high heels every now and then. I still think that no matter how feminist I think I am, owning my kink is like multiplying all my feminism by zero.
Okay, since it’s about to be banished as a topic, can I just ask this one question: if BDSM is all about the patriarchy, nothing but… etc., how do you explain men who enjoy being submissive? What’s that, and who’s to blame?
WAURRGGHHH!! What IS it with you people who come here and say, “Well, what about MEN who are subs?” as if you honestly believe this is the first time anyone has ever mentioned this to us, and that we’re so damn dumb it’s never occurred to us.
Go back and look at old threads the topic has cropped up in. I’m sure someone came smugly in, exactly the same way you’re doing now, and got an answer.
And, y’know, a goodly number of the anti-BDSM people writing here have actually had real-life experience with BDSM practices & communities, so your assuming that we don’t have a clue what we’re talking about is completely unfounded.
Antiprincess, I don’t think there’s an easy answer to who gets to claim rights to the Feminist title and who doesn’t. Some hardcore feminists might claim my collection of 200 pair of (comfortable, thank you) stilletos makes me a bad feminist, or not a feminist at all. I KNOW my shoe fetish plays into the hands of the Patriarchy, and the hardcores can opine about that all they want, but I still wear the shoes sometimes, and I STILL call myself a feminist!
Feminism exists WITHIN the suffocating confines of Patriarchy. We don’t get to opt out of Patriarchy; feminists just get to call it on it’s shit, and adjust our lives to succeed and find happiness in spite of it, and perhaps, in rare cases, even transcend it.
Txfeminist-
The nuclear family is a tool of the patriarchy because it isolates women, especially those who stay at home with children, and creates a system in which one person is largely responsible for all the domestic work of a family unit.
Granted, it doesn’t mean that all nuclear families are oppressive, and certainly, it also doesn’t mean that extended families are never oppressive, but by and large, the nuclear family as a normative concept is a tool of the patriarchy.
Doggerel, did you miss the “worshipping at the altar of the dick” comment above?
Yay Twisty! You’ve done it yet again and with that, I will slink back to The Den and silently digest your final word on BDSM.
Kudos Twisty for saying it in a shorter space than I ever could have (I’m really bad for the rambling thing).
“I think that the only reason we see heterosexual sex as invasive, and male=active, female=passive is because of the patriarchy. There are many perspectives to see it from.”
I’m trying to look at it as objectively as is possible for a white male… ;-)
And I can’t seem to get past the idea that the assault of the egg by the sperm doesn’t seem at all incongruous with the physical activity it took to get it there in the first place. The active vs. passive roles are not necessarily defined solely in terms of social heirarchy. I’m suggesting those social heirarchies are an extension of our biology. And, I know that may have been refuted here before, so excuse me if I’m missing something.
I don’t blame it on patriarchy, though there is much to blame patriarchy for (the military industrial complex, for example). I blame it on biology, though I know that’s probably not a popular perspective, here. It’s not a social construct that causes millions of sperm to swim toward a single egg. Is there any proof that the rest of the male biology is any less inherantly on-the-attack than the sperm? Is there any proof that the rest of the female biology is any less inherantly on-the-defense than the egg?
I know next to nothing on sperms and eggs, though I do recall hearing something about the egg going about selecting which little sperm she liked best (and eliminating his competitors). In any case, this is not exactly sound reasoning: its a bit like the medieval doctors who imagined a particular herb must be an aphrodisiac, just because its shaped like a sex organ. Rather than assuming the human mind has an analogy for every bodily process, why don’t you just ask: are rape and domestic violence found in healthy, or frustrated and diseased male psyches? And And the answer to that one is pretty clear…
Cass, I heart you!! Thanks for the kerbey lane linky. I have been missing gingerbread pancakes for so very, very long. They *are* heavy, it’s true, but once in a while a belly-full of gingerbread pancakes is just what the doctor ordered.
Happy Mardi Gras, y’all.
Personally, I believe I will be giving up red meat, heroin, and wine coolers for Lent. Too bad I can’t give up the patriarchy without leaving the damn planet.
Thanks, Magikmama. I appreciate the explanation.
Sounds like the Cleavers, Ozzie & Harriet, etc.
In spite of our at-a-glance “nuclear molecular structure” -dad, mom, chilluns- our family doesn’t fit the patriarchal tool mold at all. But I can see how the above would.
Looking back over my post, I now realize the plural of “sperm” is sperm, not sperms. Sorry…
I agree with Cass, an anthropromorphic understanding of the mamallian fertilization process as ATTACK of the SPERM! reveals nothing. But even such a scenario reflected some sort of objective model, I fail tos ee why the whole man must act in mold of his tiny, single-celled avatars, and likewise attack. It reminds me of pre-Gallilean models of the universe as a series of nested balls like russian dolls.
“But even such a scenario reflected some sort of objective model, I fail tos ee why the whole man must act in mold of his tiny, single-celled avatars, and likewise attack.”
I’m not sayin he ‘must act’. We act against our biological inherancies all day long.
But, if it turns out that patriarchy is biologically inherant in humans, it’s a starting point (in my admittedly feeble mind, at least) toward a longer line of reasoning.
Let’s not start idealizing non-nuclear family structures. Whether you look at family structure through lenses of history, of culture/ethnicity, or of class, you find wondrously various and excruciatingly patriarchal norms and ideals. I’m not trying to reflexively blame anyone here, but Western middle-class feminists are all too ready to embrace the attractive features of [insert exotic culture here]’s social structure vis-a-vis marriage, partnership, childrearing, elder-care, etc., while ignoring its patriarchal foundations and oppressive aspects.
I say this as a researcher in the specific field of sociological family studies.
So while I agree that the economically segregative nuclear family is (often) a tool of the patriarchy, it also is a recently-invented (20th century) “ideal” and a sphere of unusual freedom in, for example, childrearing. No other system in history has allowed parents total responsibility and license to educate children in the parents’ particular values, and to protect children from perceivedly unattractive, even mainstream, societal values. You have to have it both ways: wacko fundamentalists who keep their children ignorant, yes, but also queer/feminist/anticapitalist families who are able keep their children safe from the corrupting influence of violent video games, Republicans, and refined sugar.
I don’t mean to be snarky but just to point out that the nuclear family is a tool-and only a tool. Most normative concepts of personhood and social organization are indeed patriarchy-tools, but the family is one that’s always up at the top of the list as if there’s some great alternative out there that we’re conspicuously ignoring. Personally I think that the nuclear family is like democracy–the worst system out there, except for all the other ones that have ever been imagined. (with credit to that great Patriarch, Churchill.)
If patriarchy were “biolgically inherent,” why have there been numerous matriarchal societies?
Also, if we’re hardwired to it, why have so many of us been resisting so strenuously since, oh, when it was first invented? Despite what many men want to believe, women with feminist principles/beliefs are nowhere near being a minority of women, even if women who openly embrace the term “feminist” are.
Dear Twisty,
Please tell us some more about those enchiladas up there. I had two impacted wisdom teeth removed this afternoon (any typos should be blamed on lingering anaesthesia), and it’s going to be a few days at least before I get to eat something like that, but damn they look good. I’m stocked up on soup (sweet potato and black bean), and assorted other mushy stuff, but now I want enchiladas and tacos. I blame the patriarcy for the swelling and the blood soaked gauze, and well, all of it. Especially the fact that my significant other hasn’t returned from the pharmacy with the Vicodin yet, and the first round of painkillers is starting to wear off. Ouch!
I also would like to thank Cass for the Kerbey Lane link. I love those gingerbread pancakes! My friend thinks I’m visiting him when I go to Austin, but it’s really all about the gingerbread pancakes.
(looking around wildly!) Where? Where?!?!!! Where are the matriarchal societes, Chrys T?
From what I’ve been able to surmise, the occasional societal hiccup results in the occasional matriFOCAL society (the ancient Celts come to mind), but none of them them were truly matriarchal.
apologies for the lack of parallell structure in that badly written post!
and the bad spelling! LOL
Great post, Twisty. I completely agree that the origins of BDSM are the fetishization of the inequitable power structures inherent in the patriarchy.
However, does the fact that the Patriarchy creates the fetishization of power in BDSM necessarily make it a tool of said patriarchy? I mean, does that mean that because Jazz originated out of segregation, slavery and Jim Crow laws in the early 20th century South that Jazz perpetuates these things today?
Basically, just because two people grew up within the patriarchy and had their sexuality molded by it, does it mean that they are perpetuating the patriarchy while getting each other off in freaky ways?
I read this post and thought “Twisty’s dealing with BDSM again? She must be a glutton for punishment.”
And then I thought “wait a minute.”
And then my brain flew up its own asshole.
it seems like men are objects in dorky bdsm, too. it’s like saying touch football is a tool of the patriarchy when really, it’s equal-opportunity dorky.
but then, what do i know about touch football?
Apropos the ‘attack of the sperm on the egg’, there’s a wonderful article examining how gender roles and sexism have distorted the way we think about this moment in human reproduction. I do not know if it exists on-line, but here is the citation:
Martin, Emily. “The Egg and the Sperm.” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society. Vol. 16, no. 3. The University of Chicago, 1991. 485-501.
Martin shows that textbooks routinely depict the sperm as an energetic, knight-on-white-horse like suitor, thrashing his brave way to the passive, maiden-in-tower egg. The actual science, however, reveals something different. The egg has a very active role in determining which sperm cell is allowed though the cell. When the egg latches on to the chosen sperm and hauls it inside, it does so with a molecule that locks onto a matching molecule on the surface of the sperm. The egg’s half of the lock-and-key is actually the half with the sticky-out bit, what you’d call “male” if you were talking about electrical cords, while the sperm’s half is concave. Got it? Nonetheless, the egg’s half had been named the ‘lock’ and the sperm’s half the ‘key.’ Priceless.
It’s a very recommendable article. Read it if you can get ahold of it.
TXfeminist:
Pardon my ignorance here. But why is a nuclear family a tool of the patriarchy?
Because marriage and the nuclear family was created by men for the benefit of men. It is the means by which men obtain legal ownership of women and children and a way in which rape and the breeding of women like animals is legalized and fully sanctioned by the church and state. The word “husband” literally means, “Keeper of livestock.” Guess who’s the livestock?
The word “wedd” comes from the Anglo-Saxons. Tho purchasing a wife was the preferrable method Anglo-Saxons used to obtain a wife, it was not uncommon for them to raid villages and capture and carry off their “brides” with the aid of their “Best Man,” who was usually their best friend. We call it kidnapping today, but back then it was called “rape.” Rape literally means “to seize and take away by force.” The groom then took his “bride” and went into hiding while he tried to extort a ransom from her family. Which was called a “dowry.” By the time the family was able to track them both down, the “bride” would often have already been impregnated. They called this period, “The Honeymoon.” According to the History Channel, the weddomg ring symbolized the tether the groom used to tie around his bride’s waist and bolted to the floor to prevent her from running away. She was forbidden from ever seeing her family again. But at some point in time, many grooms decided that their captured brides could visit their mothers once a year. Wasn’t that white of them? That day became known as “Mother’s Day.” Needless to say, Father’s Day has no meaning, other than to say, “Congratulations, men. Your raping dick works.”
Only the patriarchy could make kidnapping, rape, the selling and breeding of women like cows, and the extortion of their families, sound romantic and sacred and something for women to strive for. Gotta hand it to these boys. They really know how to market their bullshit.
Any more questions why marriage and the nuclear family is a tool of the patriarchy? If you have any doubts, just step inside a courtroom. In many courtrooms across the land, you’d find out real quick that the law, which is based on Old English law, and society’s attitude towards women hasn’t changed a whole heck of a lot since the Dark Ages. And if Bushie and his praise Jesus boys have their way, they’ll turn the clocks back 2,000 years on women so that when your husband doesn’t feel like being generous or charitable towards you any more, he will be entitled to trade you in for 4 pigs and a cow. Or if he’s more modern, perhaps for one of those trucks with balls.
How is it that anyone can think of BDSM looking at those enchiladas! I WANT THOSE ENCHILADAS. (What kind(s) of squash? How are they sauced?) Oh, how I long for such foods!
I would not do just anything to get them, however. I would not, for example, put on a corset or high heels, and this is not just because I don’t have one of these –
http://www.dorset-ortho.co.uk/index.php?page=1000051&PHPSESSID=9a1cb3a2328f63cc1d39e7a036c32550
– the very existence of which I blame on the patriarchy, naturally. And even if there were a prayer in hell that owning such a thing would get me those enchiladas, somehow I just cannot muster interest in this product even though, minus a hundred pounds (how many enchiladas is that?), it could make me look like this: http://www.heathermillsmccartney.com/limbs.php (And no, I am not dissing Ms. McC. Yet sadly, I do know that high heels and her devotion to helping even amputated girls wear them have helped her into her current position of celebrity which all by itself allows her to accomplish many higher ends.)
I also want the recipe for gingerbread pancakes. Squash enchiladas…okay. Truly southwestern. Sure. But I freakin’ live in New England. I should be able to get freakin’ gingerbread pancakes.
I wish I could blame the patriarchy for the fact that I can’t. Oh, what the heck. I will blame it. I do. Now if only I could get my rage out by spanking it with a big ol’ Barbie leg.
No, it doesn’t. It means, “one who dwells in the house.” The etymology of the word is Old English hus (house) Old English buan (to dwell).
You are free hold whatever absurd, absolutist beliefs about marriage, families, etc. that you want (and sound an awful lot like the religious wingnuts a la Pat Robertson), but please do not invoke linguistics as a defense for your position (especially when it’s incorrect). Etymology is not sociopolitical, sorry.
Twisty, I bow before your cogent and irresistable forensic skills. You Are Right. I withdraw my past supportive-of-individual-BSDM-sexual-experiences comments, about which I’m personally ignorant as to the experience, and—as I now averr—rhetorically stuck with my nose in my omphalos, if not elsewhere. Such is the polymorphous perversity of the patriarchy that one’s admittedly personal predilections may be predicates of patriarchal domination nevertheless…
“If patriarchy were “biolgically inherent,†why have there been numerous matriarchal societies?”
Never heard of any.
“Also, if we’re hardwired to it, why have so many of us been resisting so strenuously since, oh, when it was first invented?”
Human beings resist all kinds of biological inherancies… I’m not saying it’s hardwired. It’s more like a predisposition. I was born with an outie that likes innies. I have a hard time believing that the social conditioning came first when I was born with these parts. Sure, I could make a self-determination that I don’t like these parts and want to make a trade, but the scales are still tipped toward heterosexuality remaining the predominant biological predisposition, wouldn’t you say?
If that biological dominance continues, I don’t see an end to Patriarchy.
If I’m wrong about that biological inherancy, then there may be a chance.
Finn,
I’m trying to look at it as objectively as is possible for a white male… ;-)
And I can’t seem to get past the idea that the assault of the egg by the sperm doesn’t seem at all incongruous with the physical activity it took to get it there in the first place. The active vs. passive roles are not necessarily defined solely in terms of social heirarchy. I’m suggesting those social heirarchies are an extension of our biology. And, I know that may have been refuted here before, so excuse me if I’m missing something.
I don’t blame it on patriarchy, though there is much to blame patriarchy for (the military industrial complex, for example). I blame it on biology, though I know that’s probably not a popular perspective, here. It’s not a social construct that causes millions of sperm to swim toward a single egg. Is there any proof that the rest of the male biology is any less inherantly on-the-attack than the sperm? Is there any proof that the rest of the female biology is any less inherantly on-the-defense than the egg?
Here is the thing that you are missing. We’ve had this set of socially constructed meanings attached to sex and reproduction for a very long time. We’ve had these meanings of active/passive, the eroticization of dominance, pregnancy as life created by man and imposed on woman, etc. for thousands of years. They are so deeply embeded that it is virtually impossible for us to conceptualize sex and reproduction outside of these cultural assumptions and values. Its the easiest thing in the world for people, and especially men, to slip into assuming they must be natural. That, however, doesn’t actually make it so. As other commenters point out, the ’sperm-attacking-the-egg’ concept isn’t even biologically accurate. The notion of pregnancy begining at fertilization still persists despite being demonstrably false. Notions of male as farmer sowing his ’seed’ into the ‘fertile’ soil of the woman persist despite being demonstrably false. What marks these beliefs as socially constructed as that they persist regardless of the evidence.
I’ve decided I’m going to write a new dissertation on the use of chiaroscuro in Twisty’s visual representations of food.
I’m sure looking forward to the next non-BDSM post!
Sterna–thanks for citing the article in Signs. I’m going to have to take a look at it.
I was once married (bad idea) and then divorced (good idea). On the day the divorce was finalized, I had to appear in court. In order for the judge to grant me my divorce, I had to raise my hand and declare whether or not I was currently pregnant or thought I might be pregnant.
There I was, having to navigate a patriarchy-designed divorce proceeding, staring at a judge waving his patriarchal gavel, knowing he has the ability to grant or deny my bid for freedom from that “institution” they are so desperate to protect, and right there in the courtroom, in front of hundreds of other people, they can force me to essentially let them all have a look inside my uterus.
My head nearly exploded. There were a thousand things I wanted to say, most of which would have landed me in jail. To be free, I had to tell them exactly what was going on in my reproductive system.
Yes, the nuclear family is a tool of the patriarchy. Right down to the bitter end.
“To be free, I had to tell them exactly what was going on in my reproductive system.”
I’m sure it was a harrowing experience and i don’t mean to make light of it by making the point that the reproductive system questions are necessary in order to assure that a clean break has been made and that you’re not going to ask for child support for a child conceived within the marriage. True?
And Twisty nails it again. Rose petals being strew as I type. Beautifully perfect.
I want to clarify that my statement that the nuclear family is a patriarchal tool is not to invalidate the toolness of other forms of families.
To wit: The extended patriarchal authoritarian family (think biblical and traditional chinese) is possibly even more of a tool. Instead of being isolated, in this lovely evolution, the women themselves constantly repress each other in order to get what crumbs of power they can. Thanks to the complete lack of privacy, not even the tiniest amount of deviance can escape attention.
Another lovely family form, the polygynist or harem, seems to give a break. Heh, the women are free of the men altogether for much of the time. But turning women into a luxury item available for only the wealthy (i mean, there’s only SO MANY women vs men) certainly isn’t going to make the poor men any more fond of all the women they can’t have. And since they can’t take it out on the real perpetrators, the rich men, without huge consequences, guess who gets beat up/raped/acid thrown on them/etc?
The truth is, having any family type or system be a norm is in and of itself a tool of the patriarchy. In a patriarchy-free world, people would set up their families as they see best. Don’t like any of your bio-relatives, except maybe that weird cousin who lives in DC? Then curse the lot of them and adopt some good friends as siblings. Want to marry more than one person? As long as EVERYONE is happy, kudos. Want to live in a big hippy commune? Yeah cooperative living. Want to live all by yourself in a hut in the woods with 30 cats? Whatever makes you tick.
Norms suck.
And why the bloody hell should heterosexuality imply patriarchy?
And, even more bafflingly, how does heterosexuality imply “biological dominance”?? Unless you mean that numbers of heterosexuals are greater, and therefore “dominate”, I haven’t got a clue what you’re on about.
There are a lot of things cited above that are just off. Mother’s Day was celebrated by the Greeks, but it was in honor of Rhea - the mother of the gods. It has a history in England as a way during Lent for houseservants to visit their mothers. The modern American version that we celebrate got its start in 1872 by Julia Ward Howe and was more of a an anti-war type day than anything else.
The rings are a pagan symbol - ever heard of hand-fasting? Where they unite the lovers with a coil of rope/ribbon, daisies, whatever? The rings became a symbol of that. No, that’s not just a new pagan thing or something the SCA invented.
Is marriage a bunch of patriarchial bullshit? Hell yes. Are there some really frightening traditions that led to things like the veil, the big diamond ring, and the need for attendants (security)? Yes yes yes. But we should try to get all the facts straight.
Oh, and I blame the patriarchy for making every god-damned Mother’s Day history page some horrible, pink, butterfly-encrusted, sound-file-loading, sentimental browser-crashing piece of drek.
well finn, I don’t want to make light of your handicap, but we can now clearly see that you are a fucking asshole. The question of child support is entirely irrelevant to the question at hand: the continuation or dissolution of the marriage.
Well I guess, Amber, you’ll have to take your beef up with the patriarchs. Because along with the history of marriage, I got the definition for “husband” straight from the horse’s mouth. The lexicographers and historians. And who is in charge of naming and defining things again? Oh yeah. The patriarchs.
But I agree with you. The patriarchs are a bunch of religious wingnuts. And Pat Robertson can be counted among them. But it’s not so cool to project what they say and what I only repeated onto me. Put the blame where it belongs. On the patriarchy.
In the meanwhile, I hope you’re not going to sit there and try to blow smoke up my ass and pretend you don’t know that women have historically been treated as commodities and as chattel and as property and men haven’t been on a mission to domesticate and breed women like animals for milleniums? What you think the term “Animal Husbandry” means? Hmmmm? What does the word “domesticated” mean to you? And why do you think it’s so closely associated with women? Also while you’re at it, look up the word “patriarch.” Where does it come from? What does it mean?
In the meanwhile, I’m sorry I ruined all your romantic notions about marriage. Boo fucking hoo. But I have little patience for willfull ignorance. Marriage is about ownership. The private ownership of people. Specifically, the ownership of women and children by men. Which is sanctioned by the church and state. There are no two ands, ifs or buts about it.
Now, instead of trying to save the men, why don’t you take up a much more noble cause? Like trying to save the whales? Cuz men really don’t need your help or for you to be their mommy. They’re doing just fine as rulers. Precisely because they don’t turn on the brotherhood over any woman.
This is a non sequitur, but I blame the patriarchy for making every “congratulations on your baby girl” card include a shopping joke.
In the lovely state of Texas - where I was granted a divorce in December of ‘05 - it used to be the law that they would NOT grant a divorce if the woman was pregnant. Now I believe it’s up to the judge’s discretion.
Child support is irrelevent. If the union resulted in two kids, then two kids support is the issue - it should not matter if one of those kids is in utero when the divorce happens. What matters is the judge deciding whether this woman has the right to separate herself from someone potentially abusive.
Or, y’know what?? It doesn’t even matter if the guy is abusive. If two adults come in front of a judge and tell him that they want to dissolve a legal contract, then by Dog, they have that right, uterine visitor or no. What it amounts to is that once a woman becomes pregnant, she apparently loses all ability to live, think or decide for herself and needs a big, bad man to protect her. And that-thar is bullshit.
Luckynkl - I absolutely agree that marriage has/is about ownership - I’ve just always heard totally different explanations for all the stuff you mentioned. And these are explanations from history majors/buffs/books - not JUST floweredy sites on the intarweb.
Would you cite some references?? If you’d rather, you can mail me them - lollylb at hotmail dot com.
I love all this anthro/socio/etymo logical stuff, and I’m honestly curious as to where you got your assertions.
Thanks!!!
Luckynkl,
Marriage is about ownership. The private ownership of people. Specifically, the ownership of women and children by men. Which is sanctioned by the church and state. There are no two ands, ifs or buts about it.
Well, I’m not sure ‘private’ captures it fully. I think you might agree that marriage as a social institution is merely the mechanism of making women as a class the property of men as a class and compeling them to socially reproduce for men and their purposes.
“Also, if we’re hardwired to it, why have so many of us been
resisting so strenuously since, oh, when it was first invented?”
Because, while THEY might be hardwired to it, WE aren’t.
I’m serious. Let me take my cynic’s association membership card out of my wallet here and show it to you. MEN are hardwired for dominance hierarchies and crapping on the weak. We’re not. Not that we can’t — I can name you plenty of women and girls I’ve known who are damned good at it. But to institutionalize it? I’m sorry if this is un-PC, but tough shit. If men AREN’T hardwired for it, they’re making a damned good show of faking it.
Racism is probably also hardwired — like I said, distrust of the stranger. But I can assure you that this doesn’t mean that black people are gonna put up with it without a fight. Nor do we put up with being crapped on without a fight.
If we WERE hardwired to tolerate abuse and hatred, we wouldn’t fight it, as you said. But this doesn’t mean they aren’t hardwired to dish it out. Even if thre are statistical stragglers who aren’t like this, I truly do believe this.
I am going to take an unpopular stand here, but to some degree I agree with Finn. If there is a child involved there is more paperwork in a divorce and that paperwork has to be filled out for the divorce to be final. Child support, visitation, and all that jazz. Having to stand up and state your uterine state in front of the whole court stinks majorly, but it makes the divorce final. It sounds harsh but it is like splitting the assets of a marriage, half the house, half the car, half the kid.
So, let me get this straight… I can keep the stilettos, I can wear the stilettos, just as long as I know and acknowledge openly that the stilettos are tools of the patriarchy.
Hot diggity!!!
So stipulated! Pass me the shoes, sistah!!!
~C~
I do hope this whole website is a parody, but just in case it’s not, let me ask one simple question: Why should it be a problem for you (plural, if the shoe fits…) when it turns out that some people, well-educated people, liberal-minded people even, in their own private lives, choose to adhere to what you would call a ‘patriarchal’ model, with the woman obeying the man and striving to please him, and the man leading and cherishing her in turn?
That’s a real question, there.
Finn,
Actually the egg travels to meet the sperm. And the sperm would never be able to swim all the way to the egg without the uterus helping some of them along. The whole process is a lot different from how it is portrayed in our patriarchy-influenced schoolbooks.
My source, in case you think I’m making this up, is the reputable agency RFSU who has been dealing with education on all issues regarding sex in Sweden for over eighty years.
One could just as well consider the female orgasm to suck the male dry, as many people feared and fantasied about at the turning of the last century (I recommend Bram Dijkstra’s books on this).
Twisty - I have to say I respect that you are consistent in your patriarchy-blaming. You don’t let people try to condone stillettos or BDSM or even regular old nuclear families. I disagree with you on some of what you say but I have never felt the need to argue with you about it because your beliefs are crystal-clear and the same for every issue. They’re grounded in certain principles, and no matter how people may talk around an issue, you can always return to what’s important to you.
People on every side of these arguments could learn quite a bit from your spine!
My shrink says that S-M is really about the submissive controling the dominent. In otherwords, the one who appears to be helpless is really in control.
Do you think that he is confused? Is he confusing me?
Is having a male psychologist like having a male gynecologist?
Oh yeah, on divorcing while pregnant…
In Harris County it is the practice not to bastardize the child so it is next to impossible to get a divorce while pregnant unless the fetus is threatened by the woman’s husband…
“My shrink says that S-M is really about the submissive controling the dominent. In otherwords, the one who appears to be helpless is really in control.”
That’s what he tells himself when he’s torturing his girlfriend.
#58: And then my brain flew up its own asshole.
I say: Twisty for Benign Dictator of the Universe; Chris Clarke for Official Proctological Court Jester of the Universe. And bravo! What a relief that we’re not flogging BDSM any more.
To veer wildly off subject here, I have a culinary question.
Dear Twisty -
You have convinced me of the wonderfulness of fennel. But I am at a loss as to what to do with the tops. Help?
Thanks!
LL
LL, save fennel tops for soup stock. Heaven, I tell you.
Okay, we know that Anglo Saxon mauraders were savages. But how does that relate to my marriage? Quite simply - it doesn’t.
The comparison is like saying, in ancient times, all houses were made with dirt floors, a fire pit in the middle and a hole in the ceiling. Therefore, conditions for the inhabitants were alternately smoky or damp, and in general, unhealthy. Therefore, no one should ever live in a house, because it is clearly unhealthy.
If one takes a restrictive view of marriage, one might as well just agree that “marriage exists only between a man and a woman,” I don’t think that our gay and lesbian friends would get behind that.
Marriage can surely be a contract between two individuals who decide what the terms are. As stated by Reb, it’s a tool . And as a contract between two individuals, many many variations of “marriage” thereof can occur. People partner for many, many reasons. Who are we to say what those reasons are? What the terms of their relationship are? isn’t marriage simply an outward expression of a commitment between two individuals? does every marriage encompass the white dress, the tacky garter belt, the chicken dance and all the rest? Clearly not.
Although, I do agree, that the state has it’s ideas about marriage which are entirely different than mine and my husband’s.
So please, people. Let’s not be reductionist.
Please know that I have been in and out of one of the most repressive systems in the US - Texas divorce court. I am an advocate for battered women. I am in and around courts all the time and I have seen heinous things happen to women and children there. I have had loads of experience with the state’s utterly bogus ideas about women, children, pregnancy and domestic violence. So believe me, I know of what I speak.
And yet, and yet. My husband and I have a marriage of equals. Of Equals. it is possible. Happy Feminist wrote a great post about her marriage in response to some Christians who disagreed that a marriage could be anything other than dominant/submissive. (Hm. How interesting…it all ties back in… !)
“It doesn’t even matter if the guy is abusive. If two adults come in front of a judge and tell him that they want to dissolve a legal contract, then by Dog, they have that right.”
Actually, it does matter, in Texas, if the guy is abusive. But the rules regarding domestic violence are determined county-by-county. In the country counties, it’s pretty bad and they dont’ much care. In the cities, they are a tad more aware. However, a demand for accountability in cases where abuse has occured can backfire on women, as horrible as that is. A woman who desperately wants a divorce and goes before a judge with an agreed order, when asked by the judge, “Has family violence occured within the marriage in the two years preceding the suit for divorce?” , if she has to answer Yes because Yes is the truth - the court can refuse to enter her petition of divorce and require a hearing on the grounds that testimony is necessary due to allegations of domestic violence. This can open up a whole can of legal, financial, and other woes for battered women - not the least of them being legally tethered to an abuser for months to come awaiting a hearing.
I myself have used family court cases and situations as a measuring stick on many occasions to demonstrate that bias against women, ugly stereotypes that hurt women, and double standards for women’s behavior, as well as pure disregard for domestic violence and even incest are alive and well in the US.
In other words, yes: some of the worst of patriarchy is seen in family court. You should have seen some jurors faces twist when I was testifying once, and the terms “patriarchy” and “radical feminist” came up. Whoa, mama. I think they were ready to lynch me, then and there.
You probably wonder at this point how I can possibly retain the notion that a marriage can be a marriage of equals…! And yet, our marriage is just that, and I refuse to hear it spoken of as the inevitable tool of something ugly, hurtful and oppressive.
Please. Let’s not confuse some historical events or the general problems of family court with the private reality of the marriage of two self-identifed feminists.
I suppose my question, how is marriage a tool of the patriarchy, was purely rhetorical, wasn’t it? :-)
Amber: “Etymology is not sociopolitical, sorry.”
It most certainly IS. For instance:
The suffix “Ko” is sometimes attached to the first names of Japanese women. You can see it in men’s first names too, but it’s more common in women’s names. It means snow-white, which has connotations of purity and virginal innocence. Virginal innocence is of course a requirement for women in traditional patriarchies.
That’s just ONE of the many millions of ways patriarchy has boxed women into neat little semantic packages. This occurs across cultures, including our own. Better brush up.
Hedonist,
It doesn’t matter who is tied up, or who is the “master†or the “mistress.†Whatever role a man might like to play in this drama, he is still worshipping at the alter of his own dick. And any woman who plays this game (in whatever role, in whatever outfit or with whatever props),if she is doing it in service to a man’s sexual satisfaction (or playing a “power†position in a lesbian encounter) she NOT “liberated;†rather, she is also worshipping at the Altar of the Dick, just in a more stylized fashion than the vanillas, while wearing a sillier costume.
What about women who aren’t doing BDSM in service to a man’s satisfaction? I’m sure that too many are–and as you pointed out, that happens in vanilla sex as well–but I’ve read from plenty of feminist women who genuinely enjoy BDSM, whether as a sub or a dom. Why do you assume that none of them genuinely enjoy it, and that they must be doing it only to please men?
If female submission is the problem, as Twisty said in her other post, I still don’t see how female doms and male subs are a symptom of the patriarchy. Yes, it’s a problem if the women have to dress up in uncomfortable costumes regardless of role while the men can wear whatever they want. But not all BDSMers practice it that way. If a couple wears equally comfortable clothing, and incorporates the desires of both partners into their roleplaying, what’s the problem? I genuinely don’t see how BDSM must mean “worshipping at the alter of the dick” if the woman is doing it for her own pleasure as well as that of her partner.
I’m not here to quarrel about sex or various patriarchal tools. But that’s just way too much cheese on that enchilada. I’m surprised–East Side is the shit. Of course, I’m fond of any place that grows their own food.
In Harris County it is the practice not to bastardize the child so it is next to impossible to get a divorce while pregnant unless the fetus is threatened by the woman’s husband…
(retches) Unless the FETUS is threatened? Wha? jaye, I’m really hoping you’re exaggerating for effect, but I’m a-feared that you may be quoting some legal precendent. If so, please send source material and address where I may begin the ranting torrent of mail. Thx.
The whole “sperm invades the egg” scenario is clearly influenced by patriarchal ideas about male-female relationships. It’s sooo obvious. However, for an informed (and informative) lesson on how patriarchy interprets medical data in its favor (especially regarding women’s bodies), I recommend Natalie Angier’s “Woman: An Intimate Geography.” It’ll turn your world upside down, and in a good way. Plus, she provides data, science, footnotes, all good ammo in conversations such as these.
I really wasn’t trying to be sickening. Can you believe that shit?
No, it isn’t the law, but worse, it is the judge’s discretion and that means–drumroll–don’t let that little lady give birth on her own.
It is a male court system even if you are a female. It is a ol’ boys’ network if you are not.
This comes from my experience clerking with a law firm while finishing law school and working on indigent cases. The judges do indeed ask if women are pregnant and they really want to know what is happening in your uterus. If you are indeed pregnant, they won’t grant you the divorce. Most attorneys will simply not finalize a divorce while a woman is pregnant so when the “embarrassing” question by the “phallic-gavel” toting, black robe wearing MAN, she doesn’t feel the need to lie. But she will be asked because so far we don’t do ultrasounds at the courthouse door. I would imagine that they would hear some motion for special circumstances, but they will give you a TRO without having to hear from the man in question. Ex parte TROs are normal. So if you fear the soon to be ex-husband–like he may kill you if you are pregnant with another man’s child–I would think that an attorney would write the temporary orders–which are usually the basis for the final decree–with a TRO attached for the court’s consideration.
When people do show up for TRO day–women sit on one side of the courtroom, men on the other. The baliff will not allow outside folks come in. I got in because I was clerking for an attorney who had business before the court that morning. The baliff watches over the folks while they are in the courthouse, but of course, let’s not really protect women outside the courthouse. It is indeed a dangerous world out there.
Sorry to eat up Twisty’s space, but that law thing gets me going. We should protest this sort of treatment, but it is uphill in the courts and the legislature. They are not familiar with the 21st Century.
Hey sparkle, I’m reading and re-reading what I wrote, trying to figure out how I led you to believe that I assumed BDSM participants do not enjoy worshipping at the Altar of the Dick? Because as a mostly-het female, I actually have a ball doing it (hey, a pun!!!) on my terms.
Enjoying such “worship” and having an orgasm from it are two very, very different things though. Your typical dungeon dominatrix typically doesn’t get to climax, because she’s too busy managing a scene in order to serve the man’s orgasm. It’s ALL ABOUT HIM.
Now, as to whether or not female “bottoms” get to have REAL (not noisly faked) orgasms. . . well, I guess, I wouldn’t know!
One more thing: Notice my qualifier, that little word “if.” IF she is doing it in service to a man’s sexual satisfaction . . . IF she’s playing a “power role” . . .so, I’m sorry, sorry, sorry, but again, welcome to the Patriarchy. However, I never suggested you or anyone else couldn’t have fun playing the game.
As Twisty says, carry on, just don’t be fooled!
I’m assuming Harris County in Texas - right? I got divorced in Williamson County and the whole point was moot for me as a)the ex had been snipped and b)there wasn’t a whole lot of baby-making opportunity in the last year, if you get my drift. Even so, the question royally pissed me off when I came to it.
The fennel tops are currently in water, in a vase on my kitchen counter because they smell SO GOOD. Of course, my whole apartment smells fabulous right now. I’m making a variation of the clams recipe, but with chicken. I’m calling it Derivative Chicken.
BDSM feminists remind me of Charlie’s Angels feminists. “Just because I’m wearing a bustier and chasing criminals while wearing 4-inch stilettoes doesn’t mean I’m not a totally empowered woman!”
“In Harris County it is the practice not to bastardize the child so it is next to impossible to get a divorce while pregnant unless the fetus is threatened by the woman’s husband…”
Most standing court orders state that a pregnancy which occurs within the constraints of a marriage (even one that is ending) is assumed to be of the husband’s doing. Therefore, an affidavit of paternity must be submitted on final orders if you are pregnant : to determine whether or not the potential child is the husband’s or someone elses.
If you have no one to sign the affidavit, (ie, your soon to be ex husband swears its not his and no other suitor is forthcoming to claim it) then you do have a problem, and they can refuse to sign off on a final decree until a child is born, the birth certificate filled out, the DNA test done, etc.
it’s less about bastardizing the child than it is to prevent Father from paying child support on a child who can be proven to be not his biologically.
Unfortunately - women who are pregnant of a child by someone other than the husband at time of divorce trial, even if they separated years ago and things dragged on, are at high risk for losing custody of their other children. Because of course any woman who decides for herself when to have another child, or start another relationship, and doesn’t wait til the state stops fiddling around with it’s endless hearings, paperwork, and blah blah blah - is just a slut, and unfit.
Right?
yeah, the pregnancy clause makes me mad.
The whole “sperm invades the egg†scenario
“A human being has a body that is inviolate; and when it is violated, it is abused. A woman has a gullet that is penetrated in taco-eating: permeable, its corporeal solidness a lie. The discourse of la verdad de la cocina calls that penetration violation. This it does with some consistency and some confidence. Violation is a synonym for taco-eating. At the same time, the penetration is taken to be a use, not an abuse; a culinary use; it is appropriate to enter her esopahgus, to push into (“violateâ€) the boundaries of her body. She is human, of course, but by a standard that does not include not eating tacos. She is, in fact, human by a standard that precludes not eating tacos, since to keep a taco out altogether and for a lifetime is deviant in the extreme, a psychopathology, a repudiation of the way in which she is expected to manifest her appetite.”
– Not Andrea Dworkin
Of course, it’s very easy to bring up horrifying what-if’s. “What if he finds out he’s been paying support on a kid that’s not his for YEARS!!” What if, what if, what if. I will bet you a patty melt and a beer that the original idea behind it had NOTHING to do with children not belonging to the husband, rather it was all about keeping the little woman under thumb.
We all live in the patriarchy, and we all do what we must to get by and live the happiest life we can. You can recognize that your sexuality is influenced by society without avoiding it or trying to change it. If humans were raised without gender, might I be attracted to men too and not just women? Perhaps, but I also see no need to try to find a man whom I could stand since I’m perfectly happy being a lesbian. Likewise with prefered sexual activities: you can enjoy something and recognize that less-than-ideal circumstances are what make it exciting. Then as a human with free will, you can choose whether to participate in an act that you enjoy but doesn’t come from a healthy place, or you can choose to reject it. Feminism isn’t about looking into anyone’s bedrooms to see if someone likes to be tied up or spanked or whatever. It’s about presenting everyone with the information to make choices about their lives. What each of us might do is really no one’s business other our own and our partners’, until we decide to post it online and make it out to be something liberating and pretend that we like what we do in a vacuum.
Chris Clarke: one of the few taco-owners who’s hip to the Politics of the Taco.
“it had NOTHING to do with children not belonging to the husband, rather it was all about keeping the little woman under thumb.”
yes, or quite possibly both. keeping her married AND pregnant: what a bargain! Now if only they could find a law to take away our shoes…..